Replace the Wal-Mart with a slots parlor, and a new state law makes that scenario not only possible but almost mandatory.

“All these types of impacts that communities are worried about,” said Jeff Butler, director of planning for the engineering firm David Miller and Associates, “... these facilities skirt all these requirements.”

State Sen. Noah Wenger and state Rep. Katie True are out to change that.

Wenger and True plan to introduce companion bills in the state Legislature soon that would repeal a controversial provision of the new gambling law that overrides local zoning and land-use rules in determining where slots parlors can be built.

“The recently enacted gambling bill would absolutely pre-empt local decision-making when it comes to the location and function of gambling facilities,” said Wenger, pointing out that the new board set up to issue slots licenses has no expertise in land-use issues.

While most critics’ attention has been focused on another section of the gambling law allowing state officials to own up to 1 percent of a slots company, the Republicans said, the land use and zoning language has been largely overlooked.

And if the pre-emption isn’t corrected soon after the Legislature returns to Harrisburg next month, they said, it likely won’t ever be fixed because of other language in the gambling law protecting slots licensees from rules changes.

“The sad reality is that greed continues to cloud good judgment,” said True, who represents the 41st District in the county’s western suburbs.

The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors is backing the Wenger/True initiative.

“Why should the gaming industry be excluded from the same thing any other business would have to comply with?” asked PSATS lobbyist Elam Herr.

A state’s right

The slots law, rammed through the General Assembly earlier this summer, has come under fire even from some gambling supporters for its language allowing 1 percent ownership of slots operations by elected or appointed officials and for the pre-emption requirement.

Opponents said in early July, as the bill was making its way through the Senate and House, that legislative leaders were promising an opportunity to amend some of the most controversial sections by fall.

Lawmakers are lining up for the right to be prime sponsors of legislation repealing the 1 percent provision.

But fewer are familiar with the municipal zoning and land-use override.

On page 116 of the 146-page slots law, section 1506 says that “the conduct of gaming ... including the physical location of any licensed facility, shall not be prohibited or otherwise regulated by any ordinance, home rule charter provision, resolution, rule or regulation of any political subdivision or any local or state instrumentality or authority that relates to zoning or land use to the extent that the licensed facility has been approved by the board.”

The board is the new state Gaming Control Board, which has the ultimate authority to decide who gets 14 slots licenses.

What that means, Wenger and True said, is that the board may approve a slots application even if the proposed site isn’t in compliance with municipal zoning laws.

And the parlor can be built without meeting local ordinances governing such land-use issues as size of the building, traffic control, number of parking spots, storm-water management, lighting and landscaping.

Wenger, the veteran senator from the 36th District, said a slots parlor could be built next to a school, a neighborhood or a church. It could be any size, design or color, he said, with any kind of signs the owners want.

While the law says the gaming board may take local zoning and concerns of municipal governments into consideration, there’s no requirement for the board to heed local input.

“There’d be no control,” agreed Elam Herr, the PSATS lobbyist, who lives in Lancaster County.

Wenger and True, who both voted against the slots law, said the language seems to have been added to prevent local governments from blocking construction of gambling parlors, which would cut the amount of revenue the state is expecting to generate from 61,000 slot machines.

Ten of the 14 licenses are earmarked for horse-racing tracks, with the rest stand-alone slots parlors or “resort” licenses. Except for the two resort licenses, slots operations eventually can have up to 5,000 machines each.

The goal is to generate what Gov. Ed Rendell’s administration projects will be $1 billion for school property tax relief, although critics question whether the tax revenue from slots ever will hit those numbers.

True said she expects more efforts to expand legal gambling are coming, which could affect Lancaster County if the pre-emption rule remains in place. “The people who have pushed through gambling in the General Assembly have taken a no-prisoners approach to legislating – and now local governments and the people who live in the communities where these slots parlors and future racetracks will be located have no recourse to ensure that their homes and towns will be protected against all the issues that arise from gambling facilities,” True said.

Rounding up support

The legislation repealing the land-use pre-emption will be introduced as identical bills in each chamber. The Lancaster County lawmakers are looking for co-sponsors, something that might not be completed until their colleagues get back from summer vacations.

Jake Smeltz, Wenger’s policy director, said the bills would entirely remove the override provision.

“I don’t want it to be modified,” True said. “I want it to be gone.”

Jeff Butler, who works with local planning commissions as a consultant, concurs.

He said pre-empting municipal laws would counteract “smart growth” planning across the state.

A slots parlor with the number of machines allowed by law could have the kind of impact on a community that a “big-box” retailer has, he noted.

“The amount of money and time spent on [planning],” Butler said, “... seems to be thrown out the window if these can come in and just plop down right in your community.”

It’s critical for the repeal to be voted on soon, Wenger and True said, because the gambling law provides that any significant legal changes made after licenses are issued can trigger full or partial refunds of the $50 million license fees.

“In the end, we think that local governments and the citizens of those communities should have a say,” Wenger said.

“If a farmer, builder, church or any citizen in Pennsylvania has to comply with land development and land use conditions set forth by local governments, then we should ask no less from a licensee who wants to build or operate a gambling facility.”

blog comments powered by Disqus